Remove Gmail account

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already flag destructive and idempotent behavior, but the description adds substantial context: best-effort refresh-token revocation, local entry deletion, default-account reassignment/clearing, revocation failures being ignored, and repeat safety. This goes well beyond the annotations and gives an agent a clear model of side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-organized into concise sections (Args, Returns, Examples, Error Handling) with the main behavior front-loaded. Every sentence adds value—no padding—and the error-handling note is especially useful for a destructive tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, this description is complete: it covers behavior, return content, example invocations, and error cases. The annotations carry the destructive/idempotent profile, and the description fills in the rest. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and interpret the result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema description already documents the only parameter ('Email or alias of the account to remove'). The description's Args section repeats this without adding new semantics, though the examples provide useful formatting. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the semantic load.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a precise verb+resource: 'Remove a stored Gmail account by email or alias.' This unambiguously identifies the operation and, alongside the sibling set (gmail_add_account, gmail_list_accounts), makes clear it is the removal counterpart. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear operational context—what revocation, deletion, and default-account behavior happen—but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives or when not to use it. However, the purpose is so specific that an agent can infer the appropriate context; it just lacks an explicit exclusion or alternative-naming statement.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.